9/30/2014

This is reported in the main media. ‘Mr Teo also apologized on Facebook
to the YMCA: “The protestors were going after me but it affected the
children and the event . For this I feel sorry and would apologise to
YMCA and the children for this inconvenience caused because of my
presence.”’ And in response to Roy Ngerng’s offer to apologise to the
children, Ser Luck said it was a step forward. Then he added that Roy
had spoilt the day for the children and , ‘For sure you have to
apologise and more!’

Ser Luck did not explain what is the meaning of ‘more’. Is he saying
apology must also explain? But Roy has already explained and not
accepted. He had dismissed Roy’s explanation that he ‘didn’t know what
was going on the stage’. So the best thing for Roy to do is to go and
ask Ser Luck what is ‘more’ and what is enough or can be accepted. If
Roy were to do the same and apologise on his Facebook, I think this way
sure cannot.

It was gracious for Ser Luck to apologise to YMCA. It was also good for
him to clarify that the protestors were there protesting to him and not
to heckle the children. But in doing so they did frighten some of them
and spoilt their day.

For those boys and girls screaming that the protestors were there to
heckle the children, I think Ser Luck being the main target of their
protest, is telling exactly what it was all about. Would this put an end
to the ‘heckle’ accusation?

The Americans would say the affected children were collateral damages as
they were not the target or the issue. Still it is good for Roy and Hui
Hui to make an apology for interrupting their performance. But this
part is very difficult. How? Put up a one page apology in the newspaper,
as putting up on their Facebook would not likely to be accepted. I
can’t advise them on this. And the best person is Ser Luck. Go ask Ser
Luck what does he want in the apology before he can accept it, or what
is the best way to apologise.

As for the parents of the children, it has been reported that they declined to meet Roy. What’s next?

Below is a description of the unique characteristics of the stock market that came to me in an email.

What's the difference between your response to an Alarm Bell and SGX Opening Bell?

a. When the Alarm Bell rings, you snap - and you are wide awake.
b. When the Opening Bell rings, you nap - and everything else can wait.

What's the difference between going into a Supermarket and into our Stock Market?

a. You go into the Supermarket to pick-n-choose - and pay for goodies from the shelves.
b. You go into the Stock Market to pick-n-choose - and then pay for losses when you sell.

What's the difference between Client who buy-n-keep for years, and a Client who buy-n-contra for years?

a. The Client who buy-n-keep for years may eventually become... Dormant.
b. The Client who buy-n-contra for years may eventually become...
Delinquent.

What's the difference in the way to raise credit limit for a Dormant client and for a Delinquent client?

a. For the Dormant client, just simply call your Credit Officer.
b. For the Delinquent client, may have to call the Debt Collector.

What's the difference between ASX, KRX and SGX where they operate whole day without official lunch break?

a. Australia and South Korea Exchanges are so busy throughout the day -
everyday - that even for lunch, they simply do not have the time.
b. Singapore Stock Exchange is so very quiet throughout the day - everyday
- that they simply can have lunch all the time and anytime.

Below is a report by to show how sneaky Abe is when he made a speech in
UN to project Japan as a peace loving country and himself as a PM for
peace. He has reinterpreted the Japanese pacifist Constitution to
remilitarize Japan, to commit Japan to wars outside Japan, to revise
Japan’s military past of conquest and aggression until the leaders of
China and South Korea refused to meet him.

He had provoked the Chinese by putting on military uniform and sitting
in the cockpit of a war plane with the cursed and infamous 731 painted
on it. He threatened China by scrambling fighter jets against Chinese
civilian aircrafts hundreds of times, threatened to use force in the
Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute.

He even committed to fight on the side of the Philippines against China.
Abe is every thing a war hawk. Now look at what he said in the UN
General Assembly on 26 Sep 14.

Below is an abridge version of the Rick Gladstone report.
Can Abe be trusted?
By RICK GLADSTONE
(New York Times) -- Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan
sought on Thursday to counter the deep-seated anger among some
other Asia-Pacific countries over his government’s militaristic
shift, using a visit to the United Nations to denounce “war
culture” and express a desire to improve relations with Japan’s
neighbors, in particular China and South Korea, where memories of
Japanese wartime atrocities are never far from the surface….

Mr. Abe acknowledged at the news conference that he “would
like to improve relations with China and South Korea, precisely
because they are neighbors.”....

He struck a conciliatory tone in his General Assembly
speech, emphasizing Japan’s peaceful nature since the collapse of
its expansionist empire and defeat in World War II.
“Japan has been, is now, and will continue to be a force
providing momentum for proactive contributions to peace,” he
said, according to the official English translation. “Moreover, I
wish to state and pledge first of all that Japan is a nation that
has worked to eliminate the ‘war culture’ from people’s hearts
and will spare no efforts to continue doing so.”....

China, South Korea and other Asian nations once subjugated
by Japan have also expressed concern about Mr. Abe’s
reinterpretation of Japan’s postwar Constitution to allow the
Japanese military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to expand
its functions....

This is the heading of an article by ST’s Bureau Chief in Washington,
Jeremy Au Yong, and Rachel Chang in Beijing over the weekend. The gist
of the article is that Asian countries, particularly China, are not
doing their part to kill the IS terrorists. And it is unfair for to the
Americans to carry the can. How so? Everyone knows that IS was the baby
of the US, they created them, trained them and armed them. Some
Americans even named Hillary Clinton as the grandmother of IS. In fact
the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Khorasan were all babies of the Americans
when they fit into the American scheme of things.

When the Americans created this monster, did they bother to seek the
consent of other countries, did they bother to seek the consent of Asian
countries? Now that they have created this monster and stirring the
hornet’s nest, the Americans expect the Asian countries to come to its
aid? Is this what these two correspondents are suggesting?

That is the impression I had after reading the article. Experts said
Asian countries are steering clear of this issue as they are in the
midst of a sea of Muslim militant activists. They have many domestic
issues especially the Muslim states and fear retaliation from domestic
radical groups. So can you blame them?

China is also facing a huge Muslim militant uprising in Xinjiang, the
Americans may want to deny it, but can they blame the Chinese for seeing
an American hand in their Muslim terrorist violence. So can the
Americans expect the Chinese to lend a helping hand when the Americans
are inciting terrorist activities inside China?

Experts also said, ‘China will not join the coalition as it suits its
purpose better to stay out of the fray’. Prof Joseph Cheng of the City
University of Hong Kong also said, ‘China does not want to alienate the
radical anti Western groups in the region, and it also is not unhappy to
see the US failing to get a clean retreat from the region.’

How so? Just before this flare up, what do you think the Americans were
intend on doing, what was their intent with the Asia pivot? Why were the
Japanese, Pinoys and Vietnamese, thumping their chests at China? Why
was tension rising in the China Seas? The plain truth, the Americans
thought they could get away from the Middle East and consolidate their
forces to mess around with China. And how could anyone blame China for
clapping and egging the Americans to go on and sink deeper in the Middle
East? China may even provide cursory support to encourage the Americans
to kill more Arabs to stay away from mischief in Asia.

This new war against the Syrians and Arabs, and also the tension in
Ukraine are blessings for the Chinese and they could have at least
another 10 years of peace to grow their economy and influence.

Shall the Chinese say good riddance to the Americans? What say you, Jeremy and Rachel? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

9/29/2014

This is an interesting development and would
change the nature of this episode. It is now an international issue
involving the YMCA. And YMCA is now put under scrutiny.
The fire is spreading and getting more difficult to control.

Investigation into YMCA Singapore for using children with special needs
as Human Shield. YMCA’s Master of Ceremony shouted “WE LOVE OUR CPF” in
presence of group of Protesters to stir up anger.

This is important because Charity Organisation supposed to help the
underprivileged. Yet the action of YMCA Singapore goes against their own
principle to bring social justice and peace to young people and their
communities, regardless of religion, race, gender or culture.

They have placed the underprivileged kids in the line of FIRE and interfere in Politics in Singapore.

These three words have now been used in a political battle to prove who
is more caring and more like angels. Sad, very very sad that these
children have become an issue in a political tussle for attention,
become political tool or cannon fodder.

Anyone want to ask why I did not post a single photo of these children
and actually refused to mention their condition? Let’s show some respect
to them and their parents for a bit of privacy. I feel quite disgusted
with people blowing their trumpets and carrying these Special Needs
Children on their shoulders for cheap publicity and to score points for
whatever agenda they have.

On hindsight, I love highsight, the best place to hold an event for
these children, see I don’t use the phrase Special Needs Children, is
the Istana ground. And the President could grace the occasion and chat
with the children in full privacy from the public glare. I have been
involved with many such activities in social service clubs and I am
fully aware and very sensitive to these children and their families. I
avoid intentionally to photograph them unless there is a very special
reason to do so.

Did the Chinese
discover America (2640BC - 2200BC) or did Marco Polo (1271AD - 1295AD)? Marco Polo used
Chinese Maritime Maps from the Yuan Dynasty dating back to the 13th Century.
Original Chinese Maps were much earlier. A world map published during the Chinese
Ming Dynasty in 1418 also suggests that the famous Chinese Admiral Zheng He (a
Muslim) and his mariners had not only sailed in the Indian Ocean but had also
circumnavigated the earth.

The
Chinese Classic "Shan Hai Jing" or “Mountains and Sea Classis”,
written 2200 BC, reported expeditions to the ends of the earth including
"Fu Sang" or “Prosperity Mountains”, refers to a beautiful land to
the east of China. Evidence has been found of wrecked Chinese junks in Florida,
South Carolina, New York and Canada. An archaeological site in Nova Scotia at
Cape Dauphin found by Canadian architect Paul Chiasson also indicated an early
Chinese settlement. Numerous evidence exists of Chinese visits to America
pre-Columbus.

Implications for
Asian Regional Security – Learning from History

Chinese
are not colonisers.And Native Americans
DNA are not from East Asia, according to a newly sequenced genome, one-third of
Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East
and Europe instead of East Asia ie China.

Clearly,
the Chinese came to America as far back as the 2200BC, and again in circa 1491AD.
They came, they traded, they did not conquer and they left.

Despite
being a Maritime Power from the 13th Century, China has never colonised
any territories overseas unlike Britain, US and other European countries.
Britiain projected her maritime powers to India towards East and South East
Asia to build a British Empire that lasted more than 500 years from 1496-1997. The
Dutch, German, Portuguese and Spanish also followed.

Japanese
colonization adventures began later (1938-1945) under its “Greater East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere” ideology of brutality, ethnic cleansing, rape and torture
began in China.

If
the Chinese had colonized America from 2200BC, what would America be liked
today? They would have co-existed with Native Americans instead of killing most
of them and drive them from their legacy ancestral lands. Later European
arrivals would have simply settled down at their choice townships and co-exist.
African labour would have been imported
to work on the lucrative cotton plantations but not as slave labour but as cheap
foreign labour.Politically, America as
a Chinese colony would united under a Federation of “many systems, one China”.And today, Chinese American would have none
of the racial and class divides amidst fractious power elites that we currently
witness. A political fantasy, no
less.Because the Chinese never has, and
never will have, expansionist ambitions. Even today in Asia.

The Chinese and
Diaoyu Islands

Like
many Japanese who revised history by denying neither Pearl Harbour nor the
Nanjing Massacre actually happened, many "experts" chose not to
attribute Diaoyu ownership to China. It was on Chinese Maritime Charts in early
13th century; but conspicuously absent on both the 1783 Japanese Maritime
Charts and 1876 Official Imperial Japan Map. Japan occupied Diaoyu in 1895
after the 1st Sino-Japanese War, making it part of Okinawa. In 1900, Japan
renamed it to Senkaku. In 1951, US appointed Japan to help administer Diaoyu;
and in 1971, the US made Japan the Official Administrator of Diaoyu. This would
not be necessary if Diaoyu actually belonged to Japan.

The
resolution of Diaoyu island is key to regional security in ASEAN and the
Western Pacific. US credibility is at critical stake unless the America returns
Diaoyu to its rightful owner, China. The US should accept that China is not an
expansionist power and honour its own terms for Japanese WW2 surrender
regarding the return of all non-Japanese territories seized and occupied by
Japan. It is difficult to foresee any credible role for the US in Asia Pacific,
or the whole world, unless her impugned integrity and shameless injustice over
Diaoyu is reversed.

Looks like Ravi is going have more businesses than he can handle at the
rate things are happening. Roy and Han Hui Hui are going to need his
help again after the ‘heckling’ incident on 27 Sep. A lot of heat has
been generated and a lot of strong words have been uttered in the heat
of the moment. In nature when dogs are in heat, nothing goes into the
head except emotions and animal lust. Some people are going to regret
for saying things they should not be saying. I am going to avoid
participating and contributing more vile comments to the situation.

I was there at Hong Lim and without getting ‘emo’ and with the benefit
of hindsight, I must admit I don’t have much foresight, at best not
further than the tip of my nose, but I would like to pose a few
questions that were shared with me by some senior gentlemen. Ok, the
seniors may not be too careful and may be irresponsible with their
money, but for an event like this, the wisdom of age counts, much better
than boys and girls in heat, definitely.

And these are what they said, or the questions they thought Ravi would
be asking should he have to appear in court on behalf of Roy and Hui
Hui. Ravi would likely be asking the judge, ‘Your Honour, if a
reasonable man were to know that there is going to be a mass protest in
Hong Lim Park, what would he do?’

The facts are as follows: The Return Our CPF protest had ever attracted
5000 protestors and averaged about 1,000. And from hindsight, such
protest can turn violent even if the participants are old uncles and
aunties. They are very nice people for sure. But there is no guarantee
that their behaviour would be as expected. They could be provoked by
saboteurs.

‘Would anyone approve another event involving vulnerable young children
and senior citizens that could add another one or two thousand people in
the park? Would the organiser be putting these young children and
senior citizens in a situation when their safety could be compromise?’
Remember that a friendly picnic at East Coast Park was not approved by
the sensible police for fear of unexpected incident, like people rushing
to meet the MP. Here we are talking about a mass protest, not a picnic.

‘A second question your Honour, would it be so easy and appropriate to
inform the second party applying to hold their event that the park was
already booked for another mass event?’

Would someone think it is wise, if Han Hui Hui was the subsequent
applicant, to tell here to book another date? There was no strong reason
for her to die die must hold it on the 27 Sep to clash with the other
event. Did someone bother to tell her that the other group were
vulnerable people that could even be scare of big crowds and loud noise?
If she were to know that such an event was being held, it was likely
that she would change the date of her event.

Or, if the organiser of the event for children and seniors were to know
that there was a protest on the same day, would it not be reasonable for
them to avoid taking any undue risk and change to another date? Would
they think that the safety of the children and seniors are paramount and
they could not afford to expose them to unnecessary risk?

I think these are very straight forward and simple questions that Ravi
would likely ask if he were to be in court for this ‘heckling’ incident.
Ravi does not even need to think like a genius to ask these simple and
reasonable questions. If ordinary senior citizens could ask such
questions, any reasonable person would be able to ask them as well. And
the answers are obvious, and the two events would never have been
allowed to be held at the same time and same place, and riskimg some
uncomfortable and unacceptable incident to happen.

And Ravi will say to the Honour after asking the questions, ‘I rest my case your Honour’.

Coming back to the wild and mischievous accusations and condemnations,
were those people there to know what was going on at ground zero? There
were plenty of police officers there and if there see anything going out
of hand, they would have stop them there and then and may even make
arrests on the spot. And Ser Luck was the best person to give the order.
He was right in the centre of the ‘heckling’.

Are the boys and girls with their loose mouths saying that they knew
better than Ser Luck when they were not even at the scene? Ser Luck is
not a greenhorn politician and must be fully aware of what could happen
and mentally prepared to take swift and appropriate actions. He did not
and the atmosphere was cordial. You want me to post a few photos of Ser
Luck walking around with a smile on his face immediately after the
‘heckling’?

Boys and girls are best to behave like boys and girls and not to cry father and mother without knowing the real situation.

9/28/2014

I confess that I have not heard of this OPG. I thought it
would be something like Other People’s God, Other People’s Govt, Other People’s
Gas, or something like that. Actually this is an official public institution to
protect the people, to look after the welfare of the people. It is called
Office of Public Guardian.

The OPG has lodged a police report against Yang Yin after
the news broke of the tour guide boasting after increasing his wealth to $50
million on line, and this is after he obtained a Lasting Power of Attorney
(LPA) to take charge of Madam Chung Khin Chun’s assets. ‘We reported this to
the Commercial Affairs Department highlighting our concern of possible
financial abuse.’ Public Guardian Daniel Koh said.

Now that the OPG has come into the picture, Madam Chung’s
asset could be safer from her guardian holding the LPA. Thank God we have such
an institution to protect the people. Maybe the OPG can do something to protect
the oldies’ CPF money as well if they go and complain of being robbed.

Daniel Koh also mentioned that the LPA scheme was launched
only 4 years ago and there had been no problems until this Yang Yin’s
case.And he assured the public that
‘there are enough safeguards to prevent abuse of the LPA scheme. Not only do
LPAs have to be certified by experts – such as a doctor or a lawyer – and
approved by the OPG, but the body also has the powers to investigate complaints
of abuse.’

Daniel Koh ‘also made it plain that the onus was on LPA
applicants to make sure they pick a trustworthy guardian – it is not the OPG’s
responsibility to judge “the quality” of the decision’.In the Yang Yin’s case, presumably he had
gone throw the whole process, the LPA was certified by a doctor or a lawyer, or
could it be both, and then approved by the OPG. And no one can blame the OPG as it is not its
‘responsibility to judge the quality of the decision of an LPA applicant. But
they could investigate when things go wrong and they are investigating now.
Good work OPG. OPG has also sent its staff to visit Madam Chung and found her
well.

I think the OPG would have a lot of investigation to do when
more oldies got cheated of their CPF monies and start to complain.Anyway good to know that there is an OPG
institution to protect the people.

9/27/2014

I did not want to make a trip there today. The appeal letter
of Han Hui Hui changed my mind. I just got to be there to see what was going
on. There was another big event organised by YMCA that virtually took over the
whole of Hong Lim
Park according to Han Hui Hui, and
her team would have problems pitching their small tent and doing a token march
around the field of Hong Lim.

The sun was very unkind, contrary
to the prediction of our resident geomancer. Too damn hot. While at the traffic
junction waiting to turn into Fook Hai
Building I could hear Han Hui Hui’s
voice piercing through the car window. And there was an equally loud male
speaker alternating from her speech as if they were screaming for attention. A
clash of loudspeakers perhaps, and it was just 5 minutes past four.

I hurried to the park only to be
greeted by several huge red and white tents, the biggest the size of 3
basketball courts at least, pluck right in the centre of the field. There was
no sign of the Return Our CPF tent. There were at least a couple of thousand
people under the tents and in the main stage area. At the mole hill that
resembled what Charlie Brown stood, there stood pint size Han Hui Hui screaming
her heads out, under the hot sun, no tent. It was blazing and maybe 200 people
were around her in a little corner squeezed between the tents. See photos.

The little mole hill is in between the two tents on the right.

The little lady did not want to
bow out in defeat. Apparently there were some negotiations with the police and
NPark officers earlier and she was using the loud speakers to thank them
profusely for the privilege of the little mole hill to exercise her freedom of
speech. And of course to the police
officers for making sure her safety was not compromised. Roy
joined her later plus a couple of fiery ladies. They blew their lungs out under
the blazing heat of the tropical sun. By the end of the session, Roy
almost lost his voice.

The climax of the event was the
march around the big tent when Teo Ser Luck arrived. By then the spectators of
the Rally had swell to possibly a thousand or more. It was quite difficult to
count when they were intermingled with the participants of the other
event.Roy
caused a stir and some worried faces when he carried the national flag andheaded for Teo Ser Luck. They had a friendly
chat and there were smiling faces all round after that.

There were many things to cheer
and shared with the very supportive crowd. And they shared with the
participants of the other event as well. It was a good thing after all as Roy
and Hui Hui found a bigger audience to speak to. I overheard some saying that
the next event should be held on a Sat when there is another big event at Hong
Lim to capture their participants. The supposedly clash of event did not really
affect the mood of the Return Our CPF crowd. In fact many went there
specifically to support Han Hui Hui’s call, fearing that she would be in some
kind of difficulties. Many in the crowd said the same thing, that they did not
plan to attend this round but must turn up to support Roy and Hui Hui in view
of the presence of another big event on the same day and same time.

Looks like future events will be
held when there are other events organised at Hong Lim and at the same time. It
was a good thing, getting a bigger audience without any effort. No need to pay
for drinks and chicken rice. The slight problem would be that Roy, Hui Hui and
their fellow speakers would have to drink more ‘liang teh’ to soothe their
throats.

Former
US Ambassador Curtis Chin and Secretary
of State Susan Rice have spoken about a rebalancing of the US pivot to Asia after it has been stalled
by lack of fundings and the expansion of wars in the Middle East. At the moment this pivot
is being put on the backburner given the priority to feed the wars in Syria and Iraq and keeping the flame
alive in Ukraine. China is having a bit of peace
at the moment though Obama is still poking at whatever little holes he can find.

Both
Curtis Chin and Susan Rice are talking about commercial, education and cultural
balancing instead of war. The American pivot was all about war and about
shifting their military assets and soldiers back to the region, warships,
aircraft carriers, bases, military alliance, for PEACE! How many jokers believe
that?

So,
what is the new doctrine, what is the new change? From the pivot to war to
pivot for trade? Let’s see what the Americans are doing towards this new
direction. It is thinking of selling aircraft to Vietnam and ships to Taiwan. In the former it is
about surveillance aircraft for Vietnam to spy on China. In the latter it is
about submarines and frigates to fight China. It is also negotiating
with the Malaysians for more bases to fly their surveillance aircraft. The Philippines are happily waiting for
some aids and handouts, more warships that the Americans could do without.

All
these measures are economic and commercial in nature. Not about war but about
trade. Well done America, keep the pivot for trade
and commercial dealings coming. Sell more arms and warplanes and warships to
the countries in the region. Send more soldiers here for R and R activities to
promote tourism.

Maybe
the region has to wait as the war in Syria and Iraq just hotted up and big
money is on the way. For every cruise missile launched, another more expensive
will be needed to replace the old stocks. Think of how many bombs have been
delivered to Syria and Iraq and all the arms needed
to build up the anti ISIS forces and those in Ukraine.

This
is big business that the Americans are adept at after continuously practicing
it without a single day of rest since the end of the Second World War.
American’s formula for trade and pivot to Asia, in commercial terms.

Ram
Tiwary is writing a book about his ordeal in court and in jail. He was found
guilty of killing two SAF scholars in Sydney in 2003. He appealed and
was finally acquitted in 2012 after serving terms behind bars.

Today
he has written a book that said he is innocent. The two young scholars have
been dead for years. Dreams were dashed and hopes turned to agonies for the
parents and wives. Many hearts were broken. The deep scars of hurt were still
there, and now reopen, and bleeding again. Two young men died and one young man
wrote a book about it. With a big question mark hanging in the air, is it not
insensitive to splash this piece of news on the front page of a local media?

Legally
Tiwary is innocent, the Aussie court has acquitted him, the injustice done to
this man and the pain and wrong done to him in prison cannot be compensated in
any kind.

If
there was a miscarriage of justice, I dunno what to say. The families of the
families must be fuming. What is the painful truth? Why made a big splash on
this issue? Is this a proper thing to do given the circumstances? Anyone spare
a thought on how the two families feel?

9/26/2014

The United Nations agency, UNESCO, challenged the
validity and reliability, and therefore the usefulness, of University Rankings.

Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in
Singapore has secured top placing on a league table of the world's best young
universities. It has overtaken Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, who was No. one for the past two years,
according to London-based educational consultancy Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). Of what value to Singapore is this NTU “achievement”?

Well, any good researcher would know that you
will get what you measure, instead of what you want to claim the measure to mean.So, what exactly does QS Ranking mean?

The United Nations agency, UNESCO, challenged
the validity and reliability, and therefore the usefulness, of University
Rankings:

“Global university rankings fail to capture
either the meaning or divers qualities of a university or the characteristics
of universities in a way that values and respects their educational and social
purposes, missions and goals. At
present, these rankings are of dubious value, are underpinned by
questionable social science, arbitrarily privilege particular indicators, and
use shallow proxies as correlates of quality.”

Indeed, Universities Ranking is itself
conceptually problematic. It embraced an
“idealised” model of University to be achieved and in so doing generalize the failure
of most Universities to achieve it.The World-Class University has NEVER
existed as a concept, or as an empirical reality. The status of “World-Class
University” as the gold standard is the normative social construct of the
rankers themselves.

In fact, even QS cautions against the use of
the QS Ranking beyond its simple methodology and purpose “to serve the student
consumer. Rankings allows the consumer to see how institutions stand against
other universities." Adding: "As it became apparent that more and
more undergraduate students were looking to study abroad, there was a need for
an international comparison. We did not
come about it from the point of view of an academic exercise with metrics."

This is a confession admitting to the fact
that QS Rankings evolve around the metrics used to devise the tables including
citations and peer review. The Rankers did not build their QS Rankings on any
solid or vigorous foundation that would withstand the penetrative professional
scrutiny of the Academics or Research Institutions which now used them to position
themselves in spite of the lack of validity and reliability of these measures. Therein lies its fundamental conceptual and
methodological flaw, confirming that the QS Ranking is therefore irrelevant and
immaterial for any serious educational policy purpose.

In fact, QS rankers themselves were surprised
at "the extent to which governments and university leaders use the
rankings to set strategic targets. We at
QS think this is wrong. Rankings are (just) a relative measure - if other
universities do better and move up, you have to go faster."

It is just plain mindless stupidity, I may add.

QS Rankings are akin to nothing more than a
Market Consumers Survey, much like how marketing agencies rank the Apple iPhone
with other handphones by Blackberry, Nokia, ZTE, Samsung, Sony, Motorola,
Lenovo and HTC.

Whither NTU’s Impact on Singapore?NTU President and
University Management, as well as the Ministry of Education, should be more
concerned about the need to increase NTU’s, and other universities’,
contributions to society, instead of obsessing with the ranking game.

Below is an extract of Hah Hui Hui’s letter posted at TRE. The details and comments are available at TRE.

Dear all,

I need you to bring your families and friends to come to HLP on 27 Sep 4pm.

Their (PAP) grassroots will have 5000 people coming to HLP this Sat.

Yesterday, a map which shows the route of the march this Sat was being
released. I went to collect the banner for our stage at 5pm today,
whistles, vanguard and markers are bought too.

When I reached HLP to meet up with the contractor to finalise
everything, three tents were being built to block the path of our march.

4 grassroots leaders came out and negotiate with me. They were trying to persuade me not to organise any event.

Their event was supposed to be on Sat 10am, they said their tent will be
demolished only on Sun. But if I were to insist in holding an event
this Sat, they will change the timing to 4pm and ferry 5000 people down.
They also showed me their generator and said that they will get more
loudspeakers than us….
Han Hui Hui

According of one commentator JayF, there is an event organized by YMCA
and the Guest of Honour is Teo Ser Luck. The timing of the event is from
2pm to 8pm.

Population grew from 5.3m to 5.47m in 12 months. The target for 6.9m,
supposedly a planning parameter, will be reached in no time. Anyone
still believes that it is only a planning parameter? The details of this
‘slow’ population growth are better left to Leong Sze Hian and his team
to elaborate.

And like a programme reflex actions, all the horror stories are uttered,
in fear, that there will be consequences of an economic slow down, of
belt tightening, of labour squeeze. Did anyone say anything about the
adverse consequences of 6.9m and an unceasing thirst for more
population? The only people that said anything of this side of the coin
were from the social media. The official view is that population growth
is all goodness. Where got anything negative? You want growth with no
bad consequences just add more population and you will have economic
growth and growth.

Now, horrors of all horrors, the population is not growing as fast as
desired, but still growing rapidly. Is there no goodness in a slowing
down of the economic growth? Is there nothing good in slowing population
growth? Everything is going to be bad? China is deliberately slowing
its economic growth and the western soothsayers are all praying and
saying see, China’s economy is crashing. But the Chinese know what is
good for them and are engineering a slow down. And their economic growth
is attained by real productivity growth and manufacturing growth, not
by adding more and more people.

Why is it that there are no negative consequences in pumping growth by
adding more people into a piece of rock? Why are there no benefits to a
slowing down of population growth in a small red dot? Are the analysts
and economists objective in their remarks and comments? Are they blind
and can only see one side of the coin?

Are they real? Can they put up a balance report to reflect the other
side of the coin? The people need responsible people to put up a balance
picture of what is happening, and what is the real thing, what is good
and bad for them.

Behind the success of Singapore universities
Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Posted by Abhijit Nag in pressrun.net

Congratulations, Nanyang Technological University. NTU is now No 1 among
all the universities in the world that are less than 50 years old,
according to the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings.
The question now: Will the university have more Singaporean
postgraduates?

We should aim to be the best in the whole world. Maybe we will get there
if we change all the teaching staff to foreigners. If that does not
work, we can fill the universities with foreign students. That should do
it.

Come on, let's get it done. Be Number One, be better than the Harvards,
Stanfords, Yales, Cambridges and Oxfords. Aspire to be the best like
aiming for the World Cup.

This is a series of quotes from LKY in honour of
his contributions as one of the founding fathers of Singapore. I will
post a quote a day until I run out of quotes.

“But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then, we
must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from
any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land,
should be allowed. If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it
unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they
should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free
publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be
set at nought.”

The Hongkies are at their best again, protesting for more democracy.
They did not see this as an important thing when hiding under the skirt
of Queen Elizabeth. They were ruled by the British, a bastion of
democracy, for 150 years without democracy. I think they were having a
good time then. Then came Patten who taught them what democracy is all
about and they now die die must have democracy, to the fullest. If they
did not get their way they would not mind doing a Tiananmen in Hong
Kong. Good luck to them if that is what they want.

Between the authoritarian rule of mainland China and what democracy
could offer, it is undisputed that what the Hongkies are demanding for
is a good thing. Bearing in mind that democracy can also be corrupted. I
would agree that China needs more democracy and a pulling back on
authoritarianism. It is not that the new regime is bent on ruling with a
stick. I also think that with prosperity China would become more like
western countries in practice and a communist state on paper. When life
is good, when there is peace and prosperity all around, when the people
are happy and living well, there will be lesser demand for authoritarian
rule.

Having said that, the political culture of China and the mentality of
the power oligarch need a massive change in favour of greater democracy,
more rule of law, and lesser authoritarianism. And this must be
enshrined not only in the psychic of the leadership and the people, but
also in the political system. Hong Kong could be the spark that is
needed to keep the spirit of democracy alive in China and to spread it
across the country. China is also changing and despite being an
authoritative communist state, the Chinese people are enjoying a lot of
political freedom and expression as long as they did not threaten
national security and interests. Less haste may be a better way to
achieve this result in the long term.

As Hong Kong pushes for more democracy, it must never forget that Hong
Kong is a small part of China and is being ruled under the ‘One country
Two Systems’ model. Remember, ‘One Country’ comes first if ‘Two Systems’
is to exist. When ‘Two Systems’ threatens the ‘One Country’ formula,
when national security is compromised, the ‘Two Systems’ would have to
go. Hong Kong is expendable if it threatens China as a country. So don’t
push your luck too far. Work within the system and know that Hong Kong
is China. China as a unified country, a nation, must never be shaken if
Hong Kong is to exist as a prosperous autonomous region.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive cannot be simply determined by the people to
create problems for China, at least not now. The Chief Executive is
like the one Golden Share, one vote that can over rule everything when
national interest is at stake. Other than that, this Golden Share will
be dormant and unseen, and Hong Kong could do as it pleases in almost
anything. You don’t sell your country away by allowing the top post to
be in the hands of a suspect, someone who would not mind serving the
interests of foreigners or a foreigner.
Hong Kong should remain the catalyst, the stimulus to advocate for
greater democracy in the whole of China, like the yeast that would
change the character of the whole pack. But while doing it, it must not
mess up the dough, it must always bear in mind that ‘One Country’ comes
first

GO BACK TO CLASS
For Your Future please, Hong Kong students. Education drives out fear. Fear is
frightening, no pun intended. Fear is birthed from ignorance, and driven by
loud rhetoric not grounded in facts.

Why
are Hong Kong students protesting? Because many speakers, news articles,
politicians and so-called democracy activists have generated so much panic and
uncertainties over the next Hong Kong Chief Executive (CE) due to be elected by
universal franchise in 2017.Fears were
planted.Fears that the next HK CE will
be pro-Bejing and anti-Hong Kong? Fears that a “good” Pro-Hong Kong candidate
will not be selected for the final ballot? Fears that HK Democracy (what this?)
will die? Fears that the Nomination Selection Committee would be more
pro-Beijing than pro-Hong Kong?Fears,
fears … and more fears feeding itself to derive the worst of bad scenarios.

Go
learn from the UK and US systems ... HK 2017 electoral procedures are in fact
more democratic and consistent with democratic principles. The American people
have never directly elected their President. Neither did the British people
ever elect their Prime Minister. The candidates were also never nominated by
direct popular acclaim. BUT, HONG KONG PEOPLE WILL ELECT THEIR CE IN 2017..!
Back to Class now. LEARN

HONG KONG (HK)
DEMOCRATS SHOULD LEARN FROM SCOTLAND. There was no mayhem, riots, demonstrations
or Occupy London after the Scottish "No" Vote, despite more than 2
million "Yes" votes. WHY? The Queen, who was also the Queen of HK
until 1997, credited this to "the nature of robust democratic tradition we
enjoyed", but denied to Hong Kong during their 150 years' occupation. “We”
presumably refers only to WHITE Britons. China introduced Democracy into HK in
1997. In any democracy, there will be "strong feelings and contrasting
emotions which must be tempered by an understanding of the feelings of
others". Hong Kongers should grow their own democratic tradition in a
spirit of mutual respect and support for HK future, and indeed also China.

9/24/2014

After Tharman talked about the vanishing Singaporeans in top bank
appointments, today there is a report in the ST saying ‘more’
Singaporeans are now in top bank positions. I cried until I almost fell
out of my chair. Oh there were statistics for this claim. Actually with
the few number of banks here, there could be a good table to show what
is the real situation, how many Singaporeans are CEOs, how many are in
number 2 and 3 positions and how many are foreigners.

Also, how many are promoted recently for cosmetic reason, after Tharman
raised the issue in public? Why has the situation degenerated to such a
pathetic state of being when Singaporeans used to be the top bankers in
our country? Who allowed this to happen? No body knows because it just
happened, or everyone was busy counting their money or went to sleep?

No need to waste my breath laboring on this point. It is like the
country is going the same direction if nothing is done to put a stop to
it. If national leaders could not even bother, or did not see this as a
vital issue, best to let it be.

We have done great things, built great cities like Suzhou, Tianjin Eco
city, F1, great Gardens By the Bay, and now we are going to build smart
city or cities in India. We have contributed no small sum to the
building of Nalanda University. How much have all these great projects
cost us and what were the returns in absolute monetary terms? Let me
touch on the intangibles first, like great publicity value, everyone now
knows where is Singapore, endearing relationships, building goodwill,
they will love us surely, if not at least for our money, they will help
us now that we have helped them….etc etc. Ok, now that the intangibles
are out of the way, let’s talk real numbers, the bottom line. How much
we have spent and how much have we gotten back.? In other words,
accountability.

We cannot be spending and spending public money on multi million dollar
projects, or hundreds of millions of dollars per project without looking
at returns. We are no Santa Claus or international philanthropists
throwing our money everywhere for people to like us or be nice to us. It
that why people welcome us?

Every project that costs hundreds of millions of dollars must be
justified and accounted for. It is public money and no one should be
thinking of using public funds casually for vanity. The hundreds of
millions spent on foreign students, what is the return? Can I say zero
except some goodwill, hoping that those scholars will be nice to us in
the future? Oh, they helped to increase our talent pool and talents for
the industries.

I believe every project of such high values is meticulously studied
before approval. Do these mega projects need Parliament’s approval or
need to be reported in Parliament? Have we not gone past the phase to
tell the whole world we exist? Do we still need to keep telling the
world that we are a world class city and please come and visit us in
case the world did not know who we are and where we are?

What do you think? I think the whole wide world must by now know who we
are and where we are and how good we are or how daft we are. Do we still
need to spend hundreds of millions to advertise our existence or to
affirm our relationships with other countries?

Below is a condensed version of an article by
Thierry Meyssan on the role of the Americans and what they are up to in
their domination of the world. It told what the Americans were saying in
public and what went on behind closed doors. And look at what they are
doing to Syria, violating national sovereignty and international laws to
bomb another country. It totally ignored the UN and did not even bother
to seek any face saving resolutions or consent before striking at
Syria. The Empire is getting more and more arrogant and defiance in the
use of power against other countries.

And where are the gore and blood they were pointing out at the gruesome
beheading of 3 westerners? No, the cruise missiles and bombs would not
lead to any blood shedding. No heads will be severed by the bombs. It is
all a matter of pushing a few buttons. Nothing else happened, no one
dies, no mother and child got cut into pieces, no grandfather and mother
got killed in the process. It is so neat and nice.

PS. I tried my best to shorten this piece but still a bit long. There are so many details of the treachery of the AngloSaxon conspiracy that were revealed and I could not cut it shorter.

NATO intends to prohibit Russia’s and China’s Development
by Thierry Meyssan

The Newport (Wales) Summit is NATO’s largest since the 2002 Prague
edition. At the time, it meant to include new central and eastern
European states within the Alliance. This time it’s about planning a
long-term strategy to contain the development of Russia and China so as
to prevent their competing with the United States [1]….

future of the Anglo-American imperialist project
Since the coup of 2001 [4], the United States is planning a
confrontation with China. With this in mind, President Barack Obama
announced the repositioning of US forces in the Far East. However, this
agenda has been disrupted by economic, political and military recovery
in Russia, which has been able in 2008 to defend South Ossetia under
attack by Georgia and, in 2014, Crimea threatened by the Kiev coup…..
While performing its "pivot to Asia", Washington has exacerbated
tensions between China and its neighbors, especially Japan. NATO, which
historically vassallizes Europe to North America, has thereby opened
itself to Asian and Oceanian partners, notably Australia and Japan,
through association contracts. It has, in passing, broadened its field
of action to the whole world. [5]

In this time of budgetary restrictions, the Alliance, which is not
experiencing the crisis, is building a new headquarters in Brussels for
the staggering sum of € 1 billion. It should be ready in early 2017. [6]

The issue of the Islamic Emirate
This summer, to the preoccupation with preventing China and Russia from
controlling enough raw materials to develop the ability to compete with
the United States was added the issue of the Islamic Emirate.
An intense media campaign has demonized the jihadist organization whose
crimes are not new, but who just attacked the Iraqi people. We have
repeatedly explained that the IE is a Western creation and that, despite
appearances, its action in Iraq is entirely consistent with US plans to
divide the country into three separate states. [7] For a project which
constitutes a crime against humanity because it assumes ethnic
cleansing, Washington has used a private army that could be condemned
publicly while being supported covertly.
The United States would have taken the measure of the Islamist threat
after the IE murdered two of their nationals, journalists James Foley
and Steven Sotloff. However, a careful examination of the videos [8]
suggests that they are not authentic. The problem had already arisen
with the IE when it was supposed to have murdered Nick Berg in 2004 [9].

We have also often stressed that the IE was different from previous
jihadist groups both by its communication services and its civilian
administrators able to manage the conquered territories. So this is a
group which is meant to last. As Alfredo Jalife-Rahme showed, the
Caliphate, even if it is currently active mainly in Syria and Iraq, was
designed to bear arms against Russia, India and China in the long-term
[10] .
The issue of the Islamic Emirate did not therefore have to be added to
the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese agenda. It was already part of it.
Moreover, not wanting to risk that a Member State might express doubts
about this masquerade, Washington shifted the debate to the sidelines of
the summit. President Obama met eight other states plus Australia
(which is not a NATO member, but only an associate) to develop its war
plan. It was later decided to add Jordan to this device.

Summit conclusions
The summit held a hurried morning session to expedite the question of
its long presence in Afghanistan. Certainly, NATO will withdraw its
combat troops as planned by year’s end, but it will retain control of
the Afghan army and national security. The summit even allowed itself
the luxury of calling on the two candidates for the Afghan presidency to
commit to signing without delay the criminal immunity requirements of
the United States, while this election is organized and the ballots
counted by American forces. Therefore, the candidate who does not agree
should not be surprised if he is not considered elected....
In addition, the summit equipped the Alliance with two new tools: a
cyber warfare service to counter Chinese military hackers, and a rapid
response force of 4000 men from 7 countries placed under British
command. Finally, the summit paved the accession process of Montenegro
and, of course, requires member states to develop their military
spending.
Some remarks

Despite accusations from the Ukrainian government - according to which
Russia would have invaded the country ... but with only 1,000 men that
no one has seen, as noted by Giulietto Chiesa [11] -, the summit did not
decide to go to war against Moscow and merely posed a symbolic gesture.
We do not understand therefore why such ostentation was put on display
in Newport.

Unless the important things have been decided behind closed doors at the
meeting of the Heads of State Friday, Sept. 5, it does not seem that
secret wars were discussed at the summit, but only on the sidelines of
the summit with certain allies only. Already in 2011, NATO had violated
its own rules by not assembling the Atlantic Council before bombing
Tripoli. It seemed effectively impossible that all would agree to such a
slaughter. The United States and the United Kingdom therefore met
secretly with France, Italy and Turkey in Naples to plan an attack that
caused at least 40,000 civilian deaths in one week.

The final release is a rare hypocrisy [12]: the Ukrainian crisis is
treated as a Russian aggression, without ever mentioning the coup of
Maidan Square, or the installation of a government including Nazis. The
Syrian crisis is presented as a conflict between “ a moderate opposition
which protects minorities” and at the same time the “tyranny of the
regime of Bashar al-Assad”, and “extremist groups”, without ever
mentioning that the Syrian regime is a republic while the moderate
opposition is paid by the dictatorships of the Gulf, nor that the crisis
was triggered by a secret Franco-British war in accordance with the
Annexes to the Treaty of Lancaster House, nor that President Assad has
just been re-elected by 63% of the electorate, and that the Syrian Arab
Republic is the only one to have protected not only minorities, but all
its citizens, including the Sunni majority. Cynically, the statement
claims that the Alliance has protected the Libyan people, in accordance
with resolutions 1970 and 1973, when in fact it used these resolutions
to change the regime in Libya by killing 160,000 Libyans and plunging
the country into chaos.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, another member of the SPP, described the Ministerial Committee as a “tragic joke”. “It is like the Boss of ...

Headphones

Electronics

ebay

Disclaimer

As owner of this blog, I bear no responsibility to what other contributors/bloggers may post. I encourage all to speak freely without indulging in libel or defamatory content. Anyone who feels offended by any posting can email me and I will remove the offending article if appropriate. Contact me at redbeansg@yahoo.com